Baseball?

by PK » Wed May 30, 2007 11:31 am

Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:I thought it was funding to mens athletics and womens...not simple numbers.

I believe it is just numbers of scholarships in proportion to the percentage of each gender in the general student body. The fact that some sports cost more than others only becomes a factor when you try to add a sport to match up the proportioning and have to find a way to fund it. That is why it has lead to so many men's sports being dropped rather than adding women's sports...it is hard to keep increasing the athletics budget.

by **PonyKai** » Wed May 30, 2007 11:37 am

Fair enough.

by **EastStang** » Wed May 30, 2007 12:10 pm

I guess the following questions are in order: If you had to choose would you keep Men's soccer or dump it to get a baseball team? Would you keep men's swimming, tennis or golf or dump one of them to get men's track? If the answer to all those questions is no, then the next question is this: Does anyone want to contribute $10 Million to endow men's track and another two minor women's sports and have the resources to do so? Or does anyone want to contribute $40 Million to add baseball and one minor and one major women's sport and have the resources to do so? If the answer is no, then its really not your position or mine to complain about sports we don't have.

by PK » Wed May 30, 2007 2:22 pm

From what I have seen over the years...complaining is a national sport in itself. Everyone seems to enjoy doing it. Not being in any particular position relative to a contentious item doesn't seem to be a deterring factor. :roll:

by **mr. pony** » Wed May 30, 2007 4:56 pm

Don't make me go Stallion on you guys.

I'm just saying anything TCU can do, we can - and should - do better.
We're so used to sucking hind t**, that's all I'm saying. It's a bad mind set.

Baylor coming to Dallas to play ND? We're not even considered? That's BS, friends. When is somebody gonna raise a little hell in the AD's office? You know, castrate a Miner or an Owl or something.

by **PonyKai** » Wed May 30, 2007 7:04 pm

Go ahead and raise hell. They'd love to see someone who is still passionate about the University. But it's unrealistic to think that ND is gonna consider SMU at this point to play a game- even if it's right across Mockingbird Lane. Yes, I think it's an unacceptable shame that we're an afterthought in our own city, but we haven't been holding up our end of the bargain in providing quality, winning, entertainment for the city.

by **Water Pony** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:51 am

PK wrote:
Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:I thought it was funding to mens athletics and womens...not simple numbers.
I believe it is just numbers of scholarships in proportion to the percentage of each gender in the general student body. The fact that some sports cost more than others only becomes a factor when you try to add a sport to match up the proportioning and have to find a way to fund it. That is why it has lead to so many men's sports being dropped rather than adding women's sports...it is hard to keep increasing the athletics budget.

Like it or not, the size of the roster for a FB team will depress the number of men's team in order to have proportional numbers of men and women student-athletics. If we want Men Track & Field/CC, Baseball, lacrosse, etc., then FB goes.

The counter is revenue, which FB generates (even if it is not a positive in its own cash flow thanks to coaches salaries, stadium costs, scholarships, etc.) However, the fact that FB delivers revenue is not important in the Title IX equation. Same for Men's BB.

The sad reality is there are and will be fewer men sports and student-athletes due to Title IX. Title IX supporters don't care that the men's opportunities are reduced because equal outcomes, not opportunities, are more important. (sounds communist, doesn't it?)

by **NavyCrimson** » Thu May 31, 2007 9:14 am

Well said

by **PonyKai** » Thu May 31, 2007 11:01 am

But boy those women's equestrian and track meets really draw well don't they?

by **NavyCrimson** » Thu May 31, 2007 4:53 pm

by PK » Thu May 31, 2007 5:19 pm

Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:But boy those women's equestrian and track meets really draw well don't they?

With the exception of soccer, none of the non-revenue sports really draw well...do they?

by **PonyKai** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:09 pm

I just have an axe to grind with the monster title ix became, but that's just me and my misguided opinions. I would say soccer draws well, unless Wescott is considered miniscule. There were more than a few games at home this year that were packed.

by **NavyCrimson** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:59 pm

You & the other 99% of the country, too.

by **Water Pony** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:43 pm

PK wrote:
Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:But boy those women's equestrian and track meets really draw well don't they?
With the exception of soccer, none of the non-revenue sports really draw well...do they?

And the point is?

BTW, Men's swimming has drawn several thousand to meets against top five teams, when we were Top Ten. Of late though, the Women have been out performing the Men nationally.

Build it (the new Natatorium) and they will come!

Mu Sigma Delta (Mustang Swimmers & Divers)

by PK » Thu May 31, 2007 10:04 pm

Water Pony wrote:
PK wrote:
Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:But boy those women's equestrian and track meets really draw well don't they?
With the exception of soccer, none of the non-revenue sports really draw well...do they?

And the point is?

BTW, Men's swimming has drawn several thousand to meets against top five teams, when we were Top Ten. Of late though, the Women have been out performing the Men nationally.

Build it (the new Natatorium) and they will come!

Mu Sigma Delta (Mustang Swimmers & Divers)

No disrespect intended. I just thought Stlhockeyguy02's comment was a cheap shot. "really draw well" is a relative term anyway.

Baseball?

Who is online